Posted on 05/14/2005 9:29:13 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
May 5, 2005
Ratzinger advocated breaking up the Latin Patriarchate
...Joseph Ratzinger, for example, pointed out the need to disentangle the confusion between the patriarchal and primatial roles of the bishop of Rome and to break up the Latin patriarchate, replacing it with a number of “patriarchal areas,” that is, regions with an autonomy similar to that of the ancient patriarchates, but under the direction of the episcopal conferences.
In an essay entitled “Primacy and Episcopacy,” Ratzinger developed the theme at greater length:
The image of a centralized state which the Catholic church presented right up to the council does not flow only from the Petrine office, but from its strict amalgamation with the patriarchal function which grew ever stronger in the course of history and which fell to the bishop of Rome for the whole of Latin Christendom.
The uniform canon law, the uniform liturgy, the uniform appointment of bishops by the Roman center: all these are things which are not necessarily part of the primacy but result from the close union of the two offices. For that reason, the task to consider for the future will be to distinguish again and more clearly between the proper function of the successor of Peter and the patriarchal office and, where necessary, to create new patriarchates and to detach them from the Latin church.
To embrace unity with the pope would then no longer mean being incorporated into a uniform administration, but only being inserted into a unity of faith and communio, in which the pope is acknowledged to have the power to give binding interpretations of the revelation given in Christ whose authority is accepted whenever it is given in definitive form.
— Jacobse
(Excerpt) Read more at orthodoxytoday.org ...
I'm not sure how "optimum" the Orthodox solution is, with all due respect. For one thing, it has frequently left Orthodox churches very vulnerable to government interference, and even to a cosy system where the secular head has acknowledged power over episcopal appointments and clergy in the church.
It also tends to carry this all the way down to the parish level. When I lived near Cleveland, one of the regular features was the break-up of Orthodox churches, either because they had gotten mad at some primate somewhere (not necessarily even in this country) or simply because they were arguing over the property, which was generally owned by the parish and not the diocese. They even had a shooting over this, and a friend who was the daughter of an Orthodox priest told me that her father at one point kept a gun behind the altar because members of a warring Orthodox church had threatened him.
So all is not rosy with a more fragmented system. And I'm certainly not enthusiastic about the idea of having "national patriarchs," which could, as you say, be the USCCB writ large. Or it could also be like some of the unfortunate Orthodox churches that ended up confusing nationalism with Christianity.
These are all structural matters and have nothing to do with faith or doctrine, btw, but they are things that have to be worked out carefully.
I could see some sort of system based on rites, but not on nationality. However, even then, I think we have to be careful about not losing the aspect of universality, which is something that is very important in the Church.
Sadly, in the USA, most people define 'tradition' as anything done in THEIR lifetime.
GKC understood tradition better ('the democracy of the dead..') but it would take more than a couple weeks' catechesis to put a sense of history into American RC's--or their Bishops, in many cases.
Seriously, Kolo, we are ready, willing, and (if not perfectly,)--ABLE!
Our Grand Inquisitor (BlackElk, who has not accepted the nomination) will be delighted to meet with you regarding the details.
A pious re-iteration of the necessity for RKBA.
The Western Hemisphere could become the Patriarchy of the (West) Indies with the primatial see being at Guadalupe in Mexico where Our Lady appeared to Juan Diego!
From an Orthodox perspective, it is a very unnatural thing to have parallel churches side by side, but it is the reality. But to have parallel churches that use the same rite side by side is even more unthinkable.
But of course this not only the problem between Ukrainian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Ukrainian Catholics all celebrating the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom side-by-side, glaring at each other in Kiev, but even here in Southern Appalachia USA.
Here, where Orthodox are less than 1% of the population, we still have Antiochians, ROCORs, Greeks, etc. each with their miniscule congregation, and each making a tiny,insect-like high-pitched squeeks that sound like keeee- keke ke-seseee-seeee and when you approach closer,you find it's not a rapid run-through of kyrie eleison on 78 RPM, it's I've got the keeeeeey to the front door and I'm changing the locks, seee-e-e- you in court..."
Some people very close to me were caught up in these incredibly bitter fights of laity vs pastor, pastor vs bishop, one jurisdiction battling the other through lawyers, lawsuits over property. Some people left Orthodoxy over it, and some were so badly scandalized,they lost their faith in God. I know whereof I speak. I guess that's one reason why ---- though loving the beautiful traditional Orthodox Liturgy --- I'm still Catholic after all these years.
LOL! That was my experience, too, both in the Midwest and in San Francisco.
But what would St. John Chrysostom think of this ....um...Rite to Keep and Bear Arms???? Would be be incensed? Or enchanted?
Uggghhhh.
St. J.C. may or may not have ever encountered some of the icons--art such as the S&W revolver, or the H&K semi-auto, or even the more modern Beretta .22's recently introduced.
Thanks very much for posting that info, I mean, 1969!! We're supposed to be worried about what a young theologian wrote in 1969?!
If you go to some of the links in the article, you'll see he's been publishing oppinions like this SINCE 1969 (when he was a young theologian of 42.) The most recent citations are well within his tenure as head of the CDF under Pope John Paul II.
I'm not "worried" about this. In fact, I am mildly hopeful about what the impact could be of disentangling the papal role from the ecclesially distinct role of Patriarch of the West. I am convinced that Jesus Christ founded the ministry of Peter as a providential and transmissible role; however patriarchs (like cardinals and all the curial and chancery posts) are a human invention.
I keep telling myself: there must be a difference between an apostolic heirarchy and a clerical bureaucracy...
With due regard to the above cautions about the date of Ratzinger's comments and the fact that he made them as a private theologian and not as the Pope, I am not so sure that it is beyond the pale. In fact, it already exists in the distinction between the Latin rite and the Eastern rites in communion with Rome. What Ratzinger appeared to be suggesting is that the primacy would pertain to doctrine and magisterium, the patriarchies to matters of jurisdiction and discipline (canon law, liturgy, etc.). If that is the case it would simply be expanding on a model which already exists. Even more, did it not exist for centuries before the Great Schism between East and West? I am no historian, but that is my general impression. Finally, the union of primacy and patriarchy might have seemed more appropriate when the Western church was primarily European, and no doubt it was reinforced in response to the divisive and nationalistic character of the Protestant Reformation. But now that Catholicism has become a world religion and serious ecumenical efforts are afoot, perhaps the time for a newer model has come. I am sure it would be more attractive not only to the Orthodox but also to the more conservative part of the Anglican communion.
And it would just be an extension of regional roles already developed in the Church. (Notably, the non-Latin rites in communion with Rome--- and remember the Baltimore Catechism? Not so radical really.)
I think that if the power of the geronto-communists in China were broken, things could develop there very rapidly. An Asian Patriarchate (or Eparchy) could move things along more expeditiously than waiting for all initiatives from Rome...
Veni, Sancte Spiritus! (100x)
The organizational situation in the "diaspora" is completely uncanonical, and everyone knows it -- although it doesn't keep some folks from having triumphalistic visions of their particular jurisdiction. These jurisdictional divisions have both given rise to some of the unpleasant situations you mention, and have muted the ability of hierarchs to rein in parish revolts that are not happening for good reasons.
I was in a parish where there was a revolt that could have resulted in a nasty split. The revolt, however, was one that stemmed from solid reasons: pastoral malpractice and some twisted theology creeping in. The dean and bishop handled things very well, but I can tell you that if the people hadn't been vigilant and persistent, we would have had real problems.
We had Catholic family members of some of our parishioners rendered to states of bewonderment: that we would actually care about what they perceived as being relatively minor problems, that we would appeal so forcfully to the bishop, that we would imagine that a bishop would actually listen to us, and that the bishop would actually act. Of course these were parishioners who were in a diocese where one of the most prominent priests is a known homosexual, and where the diocese had paid off big settlements to several young men that he had allegedly sexually assaulted (including another priest), but he has yet to be removed or disciplined -- so one can see where their incredulity came from.
One of the things that made the case put to the bishop so strong was that the message was quietly relayed through discreet channels that there would be no property struggle or lawsuits. If the situation was not resolved, there would have been a huge parish walkout, but no attempt to keep the property by this vast majority of the parish would have ensued. The people involved were prepared to walk away from a whole lot of money and work that they had put into the parish, just to have a place to pray in peace and safety.
That parish emerged intact, and stronger and larger in spite of, and partly because of the process.
I guess what I'm saying is that while I certainly am sickened by some of the situations you mention (I fortunately have never been around one, but I've certainly heard about them), I wouldn't have it any other way, since I saw first hand what was happening to that parish and the countless people who would simply have either left the Church or been drawn into something very sick had concerned parishioners not acted to defend the faith and spiritual life of the parish.
I'm familiar with two very unfortunate cases in the southern Appalachians -- one in NC, the other in Atlanta. Both were intimately tied up with poor episcopal judgment (one on the part of the ROCOR, the other on the part of the OCA.) I've been to both of the parishes involved, and both are wonderful communities. Situations like this are truly tragic. They are certainly less common than they were decades ago, since ethnic chauvinism is dropping rapidly and there are not the complicating factors of communist governments back in the old countries. With the rapproachment of the ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate rapidly coming down on us, the situation should improve even more.
It may be that these things go on with great frequency yet today, but I'm not seeing it. Maybe I've just lived a sheltered Orthodox life this past decade and a half. I've moved a lot and have been a member of 6 parishes in four different jurisdictions and have attended frequently and had good relationships with at least a dozen more (and add in a couple more jurisdictions). None of these parishes had these kinds of things go on, at least in recent memory, and in all of these cities the Orthodox of different jurisdictions got along great. Even at my ROCOR parish (which sometimes has a reputation for being isolationist because of their history), our priest was best of friends with the Greek priest in town -- we borrowed their much larger church for weddings and funerals, and he frequently came to our functions.
I certainly grieve when I hear of people losing their faith over petty disputes within or between parishes -- or even over serious and valid disputes that are carried out in petty ways. It is unfortunate that all of the Orthodox parishes that you've been exposed to are in legal fights over property and changing locks and hiding keys. I just have to say that this has simply not been my experience at all.
Part of it probably has to do with "Old World" habits and conflicts, as well as peculiarities of property ownership. I imagine that as the population of Orthodox churches shifts away from immigrants or people who have grown up in that culture, this model will fade away.
Also, the presence of former Catholics probably helps, since they have a different experience with church structure. Protestants in the US tend to have church break-ups on a fairly regular basis (hence the scores of different denominations), but I suspect that most of those who become Orthodox come from the more stable churches, and they probably contribute to stability, too.
It would be lovely to hit a happy medium between tiny warring cells and a vast amorphous top-down entity...but perhaps there's no ideal situation anywhere short of Heaven!
Well, I mean 33 A.D...we're suppossed to be worried what a young carpenter said in 33 A.D.?? It alllll matters...
Kolokotronis will tell you that the most avid "obey the bishop no matter what" types in the GOA during their recent unpleasantries were disproportionately Protestant converts. We certainly found that during the unpleasantries in the parish situation I mentioned above that the "he's the priest and therefore can do no wrong and must be obeyed" contingent was almost entirely Protestant converts.
On the other hand Catholics converting to Orthodoxy sometimes "feel their oats" a bit...
But I do think that at root, former Catholics (and, actually, Anglicans are like this, too)have a lower tolerance for division and more of a tendency to tolerate imperfections in order to keep it -- which is a related but separate issue to the question of clerical obedience. And this is indeed healthy.
Regarding "The Break up of the Patriarchy of the West!
Whilst the proposal may have some influence within the Roman Communion world wide, towards Orthodoxy and other non Roman Catholics, i.e. Anglican Catholics and Old Catholics, it means very little. The difference being more Uniates,rather than individual "conversions" to Rome. The problem with the Papacy and the Patriarchy is that the former has no historical legitimacy while the latter is the gift of the Ecumenical Councils which simply makes the Pope,chairman of the Latin board,as it were. If there is to be a serious attempt at unity surely the most divisive item in the Catholic Church as a whole is the Papacy?
Opening more doors, through which Satan will creep.
Our local, very conservative Bishop Sheridan can't even keep his North county Priests in line. We have 2 of the most liberal Parish's I've ever seen.
No Eternal Light or presence of the Eucharist in the "Worship Center".
No kneelers.
Deny the authority of the local Bishop.
Levened bread for the Eucharist.
etc....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.